Atheists Refused Advertising Space Again!

[Lee]

The Atheist Foundation of Australia is disappointed to report that an advertising company has once again refused to place its advertisements.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia has contracted and paid the deposit for Billboards Australia to erect signs in most states of Australia. The site owner at Queanbeyan has reneged on the deal now, months after the message was made known to Billboards Australia by the AFA.

President of the AFA David Nicholls said, “We have been refused billboard advertising space in Queanbeyan, NSW on the excuse that our sign is a political message. It is not. It is a message directing Australians to answer the Census question on religion accurately.”

Billboards Australia has admirably fulfilled its contractual obligations on other sites but the site, which has refused our advert, is owned by the government agency, RailCorp.

The AFA Census billboard campaign is an attempt at correcting the distortion existing in the public mind concerning the percentage of people who are actually religious.

Nicholls added, “The AFA is not advocating that the population vote for any particular party or in any particular manner. This is not a political advertisement.

“It is another example where, because Australia doesn’t have a Bill of Rights, arbitrary discrimination is possible.”

[Bolero]

Arbitrary discrimination is right. :( ... :mad:

[Fearless]

Would be interesting to find the individual who gave the thumbs down to see if there was any external or personal influence guiding his/her final decision. :rolleyes:
I'd like to think (at least) a panel of people deciding these things.

[DezinerAU]

Is there a Facebook page that we can post to to raise the profile? Nothing gets an advertising company to change their mind faster than a social media campaign against them, as the recent Adshel/Rip&Roll ruckus here in Brisbane attested to.

Not that this would garner as much attention, but it's a start.

[RealityRules]

... It's not the advertising company here, it's RailCorp as owner of the site of one of the proposed signs.

Railcorp rent space for advertising billboards ... they retain the right to have a say for what billboards go up beyond the advertising stds?

Good article in the Punch today, too David Nicholls -

www.thepunch.com.au/articles/censorship-shows-need-for-a-bill-of-rights/ (http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/censorship-shows-need-for-a-bill-of-rights/)

[RealityRules]

... RailCorp have kept a right of refusal over what's displayed on the RailCorp space leased and on-sold by agencies.


what sort of control-freak individuals, who would want to suppress something seen to be against a std societal doctrine, would most likely be employed by a gravy-train govt dept?

[Bolero]

Railcorp rent space for advertising billboards ... they retain the right to have a say for what billboards go up beyond the advertising stds?

Good article in the Punch today, too David Nicholls -

www.thepunch.com.au/articles/censorship-shows-need-for-a-bill-of-rights/ (http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/censorship-shows-need-for-a-bill-of-rights/)
The comments at the end of the article seem a bit divided. People seem to be conflating what are actually separate issues. The statement by David about a need for a Bill of Rights is, IMO, political. The billboard urging people to answer a census question honestly is not political. The people commenting are confusing the issue somewhat.

Interestingly, many of them seem to think that the AFA is trying to force Railcorp to "display their message". I wonder if every time they hire a company to perform a service for them they think of it as "forcing"...

[RealityRules]

The comments at the end of the article seem a bit divided. People seem to be conflating what are actually separate issues.

I agree, people are

re-defining the issues and attacking those re-definitions (= classic "strawman"-ing fallacy), and
going off on tangents - the "red-herring" fallacy

[RealityRules]

an idea -

Would they accept the proposed billboard if the line

"take religion out of politics"

was removed?

Perhaps put - "make the census more realistic [or truthful]" - or something similar??

[Dowser]

I'm not sure who Jack Richards is in the comments below the article, but I had a good chuckle at his venom, lovely stuff!

[Logic please]

Another thought: "without prejudice", it would be interesting to know whether Railcorp have applied their "no *political* billboards advertising" criteria evenly and consistently to date.

For example, have they previously accepted election or political party ads, or even ads spruiking some govt *achievement* or policy (eg. GST or WorkChoices ads)?

Even standard Electoral Commission "public service" ads might fall under this... ;-)

[ptah]

Billboards Australia has admirably fulfilled its contractual obligations on other sites but the site, which has refused our advert, is owned by the government agency, RailCorp.


Their web site (http://www.railcorp.info/commercial/advertise) lists billboards and also those back-lit panels you see in air ports and railways stations.

Have of those shown anything political, I wonder? Not being local I can't check myself. Worth taking note of perhaps, just in case?

[Neospora]

I would equate the Census ads with the Organ Donation ads that have popped up all over DonateLife (http://www.donatelife.gov.au/) The website has a .gov so it would be easier to demonstrate a political link than with the census ad. Yet, I don't think anyone would be pointing at the Organ Donation campaign as being 'political' in tone? Does Railcorp have those ads? I've seen them in bus shelters and in shopping centres so far.

[michalis]

As long as religious advertising is not allowed on that same space then I don't see it as a really big deal.

[DanDare]

A very interesting point is raised. Does freedom of expression require unbiased access to public messaging channels? Can government departments refuse public comment when they control such a channel? Can private businesses refuse it? Should they be allowed to or must they act as a neutral participant, in the same way as a public carrier?

I don't know the answer to these questions. I'm thinking about it but other opinions would help.

[FSM]

Would be interesting to find the individual who gave the thumbs down to see if there was any external or personal influence guiding his/her final decision. :rolleyes:
I'd like to think (at least) a panel of people deciding these things.

Nope, it ALWAYS comes down to one person...

Dave.

[FSM]

Can private businesses refuse it?


Yes.
A private business should get a say over what they place on their own property.
That's only fair.

Dave.

[FSM]

The comments at the end of the article seem a bit divided. People seem to be conflating what are actually separate issues. The statement by David about a need for a Bill of Rights is, IMO, political. The billboard urging people to answer a census question honestly is not political.

Actually, I think a good argument could be put forth that it is.
The word political does not only involve government, but community and public affairs as well.

From the Macquarie:
Polticial adj. 2. Having or trying to gain power in government or public affairs.

Wordweb:
Of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power


Whilst the AFA are not telling people how to "vote" on this issue, they are actually trying to raise, and hence potentially influence public opinion on the matter.

Not that I don't support what they are doing, I do, but just playing devils advocate here.

Dave.

[DanDare]

Actually, I think a good argument could be put forth that it is.
The word political does not only involve government, but community and public affairs as well.

From the Macquarie:
Polticial adj. 2. Having or trying to gain power in government or public affairs.

Wordweb:
Of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power


Whilst the AFA are not telling people how to "vote" on this issue, they are actually trying to raise, and hence potentially influence public opinion on the matter.

Not that I don't support what they are doing, I do, but just playing devils advocate here.

Dave.
I disagree here. The census question is politically skewed. Firstly the question should not be used for delivery of government services, because a secular government is not in the business of providing religious services. Secondly the question is skewed to favour a christian result in order to enhance the delivery of those services to christians.

The AFA is merely trying to get the census question back to a proper measure, since we cannot undo the first problem or the delivery of the question. That is not political. its the same as someone trying to measure a demographic attempting to correct the measurement method.

[FSM]

I disagree here. The census question is politically skewed.

Yes, and hence requires an inherently "political" action to get it corrected.

If the company has a rule about political advertising (even if a government department), then, although I don't like it, I think they have a case to reject it.

I agree the question sucks big time, as does rejecting the ad, but I think the AFA lucked out here and has found itself on thin ice.

Dave.

[Bolero]

I wonder what definition of "political" Rail Corp uses. If they use it in the broader sense which you've pointed out, FSM, then I would hypothesize that a great many of the billboard adverts they accept are "political". To me, yes, there is a political aspect to the question, if you want to use the definition you've outlined above, but by the definition used above, virtually anything remotely related to a view on social issue could be considered "political". How broadly can we define it before it becomes meaningless?

More importantly to me in this issue is how broadly Rail Corp defines it, and whether that definition is consistently applied.

[66 vegie]

N.S.W the Nanny State....how true.:mad:!!

[FSM]

More importantly to me in this issue is how broadly Rail Corp defines it, and whether that definition is consistently applied.

Indeed.
If they have allowed other stuff of a similar political persuasion then that's different. But if it's applied consistently I have no problem with it.

Dave.